gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191133
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Tracks vs Wheels   General Army topics

Started 26/5/22 by graylion; 16902 views.
graylion

From: graylion

21-Jun

How the *bleep* does the boxer not have space for a 14 man section?

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

21-Jun

Not really 1:1 , when you are dealing with unibody like most APCs volume needed can always be smaller as suspension and driveline can be integrated within lesser height than for any module carrying platform not to mention weight from overlapping armor of module to base. Kinda like cars with unibody vs ladder chassis.

In Boxer they claim parasitic mass is just 300-400kg or less than 1% but that is somewhat hard to believe or better its questionable how they quantify it , by counting just overlaping structures or actually volumetric growth oven unibody vehicle

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

22-Jun

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

In Boxer they claim parasitic mass is just 300-400kg or less than 1% but that is somewhat hard to believe or better its questionable how they quantify it , by counting just overlaping structures or actually volumetric growth oven unibody vehicle

Since you claim its not correct and make accusations the burden of proof is on you. So proof your claim.

Everybody else seems fine with the numbers.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

22-Jun

graylion said:

How the *bleep* does the boxer not have space for a 14 man section?

Which modern AFV with comparable protection does?
Who uses 14 man sections anyways?

With modern ergonomics, HSE rules and blast protection a vehicle for 14 passengers would end up being a bus. The Boxer is pretty packed with 8 passengers.

graylion

From: graylion

22-Jun

I was being mildly facetious. I was looking at some of the smaller eight-wheelers, which presumably also have 8 passengers and wondered...

Do I remember reading something that the K-21 was not designed for big Westerners?

Red7272

From: Red7272

29-Jun

I love this conversation but there is need to pick out the various doctrines. 

IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits and carry a small infantry squad expressly to fulfill the role of supporting the tanks. The ideal is that the troops fight mounts and are as effective mounted as dismounted (theoretically). Basically the Marder and Lynx are it. The Warrior slides in just with it's upgraded armour package but lacks the means for fighting mounted.   

MICVs are vehicles like the Bradley, BMPCV 90/30 and VIBC that can operate in support of their infantry and are more capable than APCs. They do operate in the same role as IFVs but are not doctrinally IFVs because of their lack of armour. 

In reality pretty much everybody makes do and really only the Germans ever took the IFV route seriously. They aren't wrong but it has a prohibitive cost in the size, complexity and price of the IFV. 

graylion

From: graylion

29-Jun

Thanks for clearing that up!

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

29-Jun

Red7272 said:

Red7272 

"IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits and carry a small infantry squad expressly to fulfill the role of supporting the tanks. The ideal is that the troops fight mounts and are as effective mounted as dismounted (theoretically). Basically the Marder and Lynx are it. The Warrior slides in just with it's upgraded armour package but lacks the means for fighting mounted.  "

Neither in the Marder or Lynx can the infantry men carried inside fight. The Marder originally had firing ports and a remote controlled machine gun, but they were taken away in the upgrades. 

The Marder level of armor protection is not on the level of a tank, it cannot take a hit a tank can take.

The Lynx's level of protection is scalable.  At its base level it has about as much protection as many other IFV.  Additional levels of protection can be added. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

29-Jun

17thfabn said:

Neither in the Marder or Lynx can the infantry men carried inside fight. The Marder originally had firing ports and a remote controlled machine gun, but they were taken away in the upgrades.  The Marder level of armor protection is not on the level of a tank, it cannot take a hit a tank can take.

When this doctrine was created the tank was the leopard 1. Firing ports were eventually realised to be pretty much useless and compromised the vehicle's protection. Now the only distinction is the heavier protection and smaller infantry squad (allowing a more heavily armoured vehicle).

17thfabn said:

The Lynx's level of protection is scalable.  At its base level it has about as much protection as many other IFV.  Additional levels of protection can be added. 

More to do with being air transportable and reducing wear when not being deployed, rather than the armour being particularly effective.

This is an old doctrine now and pretty much the only adherents are the Germans and people like Richard Simpkin  who wrote about it in the 70s and 80s. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

29-Jun

Red7272 said:

IFVs are meant to go wherever tanks can, take the same hits

Go there yes take the same hits no. IFV are duelling capable against their counterparts. Not against MBTs.

Red7272 said:

The Warrior slides in just with it's upgraded armour package but lacks the means for fighting mounted.

No the Warrior has this capability as well. It has hatches over the troop compartment as does the Marder and Lynx.

Red7272 said:

MICVs are vehicles like the Bradley, BMPCV 90/30 and VIBC that can operate in support of their infantry and are more capable than APCs. They do operate in the same role as IFVs but are not doctrinally IFVs because of their lack of armour.

The BMP and the Soviet doctrine is different again. The BMP is supposed to get an infantry squad close to their objective or onto it. Once this is done the BMPs seperate from the infantry and form a distinct unit. Effectively they become tank destroyers. They are less supposed to support the infantry but more to operate on their own to stop counterattacks. This is the BMP1. It was later modified to a more supportive role and hence the BMP2. But there still is the bronegruppa. Which now operates more like a unit of light tanks. The funtion of getting the infantry onto their objective included to allow the to cross NBC contaminated terrain. As well as to push trough artillery and mortar fire. The firing ports of the vehicle are mostly to allow the passengers to fight under NBC conditions without dismounting. The BMP3 is the culminating point of this. Its basically a true light tank that can also transport troops. It also carries additional weapons for the passengers. This doctrine was later in practice found to be not what needed and the vehicles pressed into a different use showed weaknesses and a lack of flexibility.

Red7272 said:

They aren't wrong but it has a prohibitive cost in the size, complexity and price of the IFV.

The IFV, MICV and later Soviet designs of other nations are not cheaper than the Marder.
The Puma is problematic not becaus of its size but because the lack of it. Which is really quite ironic. The main design requirements for the Puma has been that it should fit into the A400M. During the developement process the two projects A400M and Puma have been linked one to the other to justify the ressources for the one with the other. This resulted in strict weight and size limitiations. Which plagued the program and really are the source for all the problems and the high cost. In addition the resulting product is so specualised that nobody else would ever want to buy it. Its export chances are zero. Hence Lynx.

TOP